Because of the renewed controversy in the last week about Marifeli Perez-Stable and her lurid past, especially since old accusations of service to the Cuban DGI and,  by her own admission, sympathies, support and work of all kind for the Cuban Revolution and its totalitarian and tyrannical rulers; and, since last Monday, because of my call (in a private message, I must point out) to newly elected president of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), my friend Jorge Sanguinetty, to oust Ms. Perez-Stable from her also newly elected position as one of ASCE’s seven directors, I believe it pertinent to outline the case against her.

To begin with, this is a very brief account of all the charges against Ms. Perez-Stable.  And I must emphasize that what follows is NOT a legal case against her.  Moreover, I am merely summarizing the extensive, painstaking work of Dr. Antonio de la Cova, who, since 1993, has dedicated countless hours to document her activities.  Most of her involvement with the Cuban government since the early 1970’s, be it as a sympathizer, supporter or tireless worker on behalf of the Cuban Revolution, truly are immaterial now.  First, she has stated publicly, many times in the last 25 years, that she no longer supports the Cuban cause.  She believes that in the few books and extensive writing in academic journals and newspaper columns, such as El Nuevo Herald, for which she still writes, she has done enough “anti-Castro” work to absolve her of all offences committed in the past, and that this entitles her to be an opponent of the Cuban government now.  Without reviewing any of her writings, this is also immaterial, because it is both self-serving and, to say the least, very much open to interpretation.  Indeed, if her extensive writings were to be submitted to an impartial panel of critics (no academics, of course), I venture to say that the overwhelming verdict would be that far from being an opponent of Castro’s Cuba, she continues to be a supporter.  But her past up to 1983, as we said, does not count in this case that is being made against her.

The charges that count begin in the Summer of 1983, when a defector from the Cuban DGI, Captain Jesús Perez Mendez, was first debriefed by FBI agents.  During that debriefing, Captain Perez Mendez claimed that Ms. Perez-Stable was “controlled by the DGI” and among other things, that Ms. Perez-Stable was paid $100 for every tourist that traveled to Cuba with the Círculo de Cultura Cubana, with which Ms. Perez-Stable was heavily involved.  This was an organization also controlled and financed by the Cuban DGI with the purpose of taking tourists, mainly U.S. university students, to Cuba, to be indoctrinated by DGI agents.  Ms. Perez-Stable has denied these accusations and the U.S. government has never charged her with any crime.

Then, for the sake of briefness, we jump to the present, as last week, retired Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lieutenant Colonel Chris Simmons, a current U.S. Army Counterintelligence officer,  made what appear to be new accusations against Ms. Perez-Stable, during a local TV program.  Simmons accused Perez-Stable of, bluntly, being a spy.  A few nights later, he gave a slew of details, including new charges that during a visit to Ottawa, Canada, in 1991, Ms. Perez-Stable had met with her more recent DGI controller (whom he did not name, but whose identity he claims to know well) and at that time, she was still working for the DGI.  Ms. Perez-Stable, of course, has said repeatedly, that she stopped her pro-Castro activities in the mid-1980’s. But this was 1991.  So, who is lying?  A woman with a sordid past involvement with the Cuban Revolution, who just 12 years before was photographed next to the notorious Castro executioner, spy-master and indicted drug trafficker René Rodriguez Cruz
(see http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/marifeli.htm),
who, contrary to her claims otherwise, still, returned to Havana in 1984 for an event sponsored by the DGI?  Or a prestigious U.S. counterintelligence officer such as Lieutenant Colonel Simmons, who went on to track and capture perhaps the greatest spy of them all, Ana Belén Montes, in 2002?  Or is Simmons, as “Cuba analyst” Phil Peters claims in today’s (August 8) Miami Herald, “a smear artist”?  (see Section B, pages 1 and 2).  We report, you decide.

Now, the question that is foremost in this situation is the following: Why has no U.S. government agency EVER charged Ms. Perez-Stable with ANY crime, much less espionage or treason?  The answer is, really, elementary.  Because ALL the statutes of limitation on espionage and treason—which usually last five years—have long expired in any case to be made against her.  This takes us back to a short history lesson, as far back as the 1940’s and the most famous espionage case of them all in U.S. history, that of Alger Hiss.  In a flash, Hiss was accused of being a communist (notice, NOT a spy) by Whittaker Chambers in executive session of a House of Representatives investigating sub-committee.  The charge was made public.  Hiss demanded to be heard and denied it UNDER oath before the same sub-committee.  He further challenged Chambers to repeat the charges (which Chambers was reluctant to do) outside the House.  Chambers did.  Hiss sued him for defamation.  Depositions were taken of both, still under oath.  After many ups and downs, when it appeared that Chambers would be proven a liar, ruined, and worse, as if by magic, Chambers took carloads of Congressmen and reporters to a pumpkin patch in his Maryland farm, and VOILA, he produced old papers, official reports and records, and a typewriter, all of which had been given him by Hiss years before when they were both Communist Party members working out of the same undercover cell (the typewriter had been used by Hiss to copy secret papers which he then delivered to Chambers).  Because Hiss had even denied knowing Chambers, among other things, he was indicted and eventually convicted.  BUT NOT OF SPYING.  He was convicted of perjury for denying under oath all of Chambers’s  accusations.  Hiss, incidentally, was defended by both Secretary of State Dean Acheson and President Harry Truman after Hiss was convicted of perjury.  They never repudiated him afterwards.  Shades of Ms. Perez-Stable’s present defenders?

This is exactly the case against Ms. Perez-Stable and this is exactly why SHE WILL NOT, WILL NEVER, BRING ANY LAWSUIT AGAINST ANYONE FOR DEFAMATION.  As long as she merely denies all charges and her defenders continue to believe her and to protect her, she is perfectly safe.  If she dares to initiate legal proceedings and is put under oath, she is done.  Even with the evidence that we know, that is, what has been revealed by Tony de la Cova and others, plus what Simmons has claimed on TV in the last few days, that is more than enough to sink her.  Why?  Because she will deny all those charges under oath, just as Hiss did before she was born, the charges WILL be proven, and she will be convicted of perjury.  Just like Hiss was.  Needless to say, it is most probable that the U.S. government has far more evidence against her, some of which would also come out in a trial.  But none of that is needed.  Just by denying one measly little charge, as she has done so many times, she will be convicted of perjury.  And because all the charges she will deny are about espionage and treason, by direct implication, she will obviously be proven guilty of that, too, even if she can never be charged as a spy or a traitor, because of the statutes of limitation.

Now then, the second question begs the stage.  Should someone like Marifeli Perez-Stable be: first, an FIU professor; second, an El Nuevo Herald columnist; and third, a director of ASCE?  I have made the case against her.  Now all of you out there must answer those questions and decide what to do about her.  I do not need any time to decide.  The verdict? Guilty as charged.  The sentence?  To be ostracized forever, at least in the South Florida community where she lives and continues to do harm.  Case closed.